NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Jumping the Shark: New York Times' "Dirty Little Secrets of Search"
Jumping the Shark: New York Times' "Dirty Little Secrets of Search"
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000814.html
Greetings. The New York Times has just published a rather lengthy
article about the apparent gaming of Google Search results by (or
in some way for the benefit of) J.C. Penney ( http://j.mp/eDKVwP ).
Most of the article is the discussion of a campaign to "game" certain
Google organic (natural) search results to Penny's benefit, and how
Google has now specifically (and appropriately) cracked-down on this
subterfuge.
However, the article begins to "jump the shark" -- that is, push
beyond the realm of good sense -- when it explores the conspiracy
theory that Google is engaging in what might be called purposeful
"illicit comingling" of natural and paid search results in this case
(and by extension in other cases).
This kind of assertion just drives me bats. Such accusations seem cut
from the mold of the classic loaded query: "Answer yes or no, have you
stopped beating your wife yet?"
If there's one thing that Google considers to be the "holy of holies"
within the context of Search, it's the sanctity of their search
algorithms and their firewall between organic and paid results.
Not only has Google asserted this innumerable times over the years in
public, but also to me privately as well. Google's Matt Cutts, who
heads the team responsible for weeding out "spammy" search results, is
in my view a great guy faced with a Herculean task. The fact that
"black hat" SEO can contaminate Google Search results does not
reasonably imply that Google is ignoring the problem, nor that they
are complicit in any way.
Rather, it demonstrates the almost unimaginably immense scale and
scope of search and the associated databases, and the ingenuity of
those outside parties who would illicitly game those results to their
own advantage. To a certain degree, it's like an enormous game of
Whac-A-Mole, with Google trying diligently to "tune" the playing field
over time to make it ever harder for evil moles to appear.
Conspiracy theories are very popular with Google's adversaries. Those
same parties often suggest that Google is lying about their search
results -- that they actually are allowing their organic results to be
influenced by the paid advertising side of the business.
To accept this line of reasoning would require not only that one
considers it conceivable that Google has directly lied to the press
and regulators, but that various Googlers, including Matt, have lied
directly to me.
I reject such "reasoning" completely. I know many of these folks well
enough that I simply do not buy the concept that they're disseminating
search results falsehoods.
What's more, whether you love Google or hate them, to assume a
lie-based search results "conspiracy" on their part just <b>doesn't
make logical sense</b>.
Think about it. Search results aren't secret! Which is
<b>logically</b> more likely when manipulated results appear -- in
this case allowing the New York Times to write their story?
Possibility one: Black hat SEO manipulation of search results that
Google didn't catch among the vast universe of entries. Possibility
two: Google purposely allows manipulated results to appear, where they
could be found by anyone and used to attack Google's integrity.
What possible logical upside could there be to the latter course, as
compared with the stupendous downside potential of getting caught
doing such a thing?
And why would Google even need to take such a risk in the first place?
The company is enormously successfully across a range of vectors and
measurements not only limited to search. Does it make even remote
sense to imagine their risking so much through such publicly
observable sophistry?
I don't buy it. It's not logical. It only could make sense in the
context of a "bizarro" world view of wacky conspiracies -- the sort
that claim little grey space aliens are stealing those missing socks
from our clothes dryers.
Read my lips. Google is not perfect. The organization is composed of
human beings -- flesh and blood just like you and me. The scope of
search is such that it is impossible for Google to weed out every
underhanded campaign from entities around the planet -- who will try
just about anything to get an unfair advantage in search results.
That Google is not 100% effective in eliminating all such attacks is
not a sign of conspiracy, rather it's a hallmark of humanity -- people
in the process of evolving technology that has only even existed for
the merest relative blink of time.
I understand the many people enjoy conspiracies, even though any
conspiracy theory that you've ever heard of is among the least likely
to be real! It's so much easier, perhaps comforting, to believe in
underhanded, secret dealings than to accept the realities of
imperfection amidst even the most idealistic of endeavors.
And to be sure, political sensibilities increasingly capitalize on
these fears, leading to a radicalization of opinions, and a coarsening
of discourse, that seem to create an ever expanding circle of yelling
at each other, rather than contemplative and productive discussions.
There has yet to be any even remotely convincing representation from
Google conspiracy fans -- or anyone else -- that Google is unfairly
manipulating their natural search results. But you're free to believe
whatever you wish, of course -- no matter how silly and illogical.
But would you do me a favor? If you ever think that you've found my
missing socks on a UFO somewhere, please ask them to hold the starch
next time.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz
Quora: http://www.quora.com/Lauren-Weinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com